When I gassed up this week, I got angry!

What everyone needs to remember is that as long as we continue to purchase gasoline at the absurd prices being charged, the oil companies will
continue raking in the profits with a big, fat grin on their face.

Until the public as a whole stops buying so much gas, the oil companies will continue to gouge us. Move to within walking distance of work, or take
public transit. I know people that will hop in their car to drive three blocks to the 7-11 and then turn around and complain how much money they spend
on gas!!!

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
While I was filling up on gas, the gas pump was playing advertisements for me. The oil companies need to sell advertisements to maximize their
profits! The nerve of these people!

Oil companies are truly the scum of the earth.

It is not the oil companies that are selling advertisements. It would be the local gas station selling advertisements whether on the side of the gas
pump or a little electronic message displayed while pumping.

Don't get too mad at the small local gas stations trying to stay aflote. Their profit from the gas is minimal after all costs considered unlike the
big oil companies that sell the oil initially. They sell the oil at such a high cost that it forces the gas stations to pay a higher price to get it
in and sell it. Then they are usually competing with each other over a couple of pennies a gallon. They make up any potential losses in gas through
raising prices in the store, and now selling advertising.

Originally posted by scientist
i would have to disagree with you there. If by "we" you are referring to the consumer market, that is just incorrect.

And who is it who is doing all the travelling? Whose goods are being transported for consumption?

Maybe there would be more demand for more efficient vehicles if petrol cost $2.00 per litre as it does in the UK?

i'll answer your questions with more questions...

who is doing the traveling? Well, the report didn't say. I tried looking for a report that broke travel down into commercial and consumer markets,
but didn't find one. So I'll ask this: which do you believe would make a greater difference: if less people in the US drove, or if car
manufacturers made more efficient vehicles (which is more than possible) and started looking at alternative fuel sources.

and the efficient vehicles are not in the UK because of demand, they are there because of LAW and regulations. If they passed the same laws here, it
would certainly be a step in the right direction.

I just dont understand people taking this issue and blaming it on consumers. Consumers simply buy and consume what is made available to them. If
there was more regulation, this would be a non-issue.

We are doing the travelling. There just ain't no way around it, it's us, and if it's not us directly then it's people delivering things for us
to consume or getting to work to provide services for us but any way you look at it it's us. Sooner or later the commercial sector boils down to
the consumer as well.

If we all bought more local produce or shopped more locally or didn't get the car keys out every time we needed a few more beers it would make a
difference and might just help our community as well.

By the way, I work in an area of industry which has some input to electric vehicles and believe me, the investment in hybrid powered cars is currently
astronomical

Vehicle efficiency laws in the UK are a long, long way from being draconian and the additional tax levy on larger engines is tiny over the full life
cost of a vehicle. We can go out and buy very inefficient vehicles here too but generally it's not what we desire, for most of us they're too big
and a little pointless. We have just never felt the need to drive cars with engines of more than three litres displacement in any serious quantity.
I currently have a 2.5 litre car which is very quick, comfortable and refined, it's also available in the US if you want to buy it.

It's us who make the decisions I'm afraid and the cost factors make a difference, petrol at over $7 a US gallon creates demand. Next week I'm
working in the US and so I'm flying in early to Denver and, (assuming I don't catch the plague), I'll hire a car and see some of the Rockies for a
couple of days over the holiday, why, because it's very cheap to do so compared to the same kind of break in Europe.

I should add, that I'm not trying to be smug about this. I drive to work, drive to the shops EVERY damned time, drive to distant destinations
rather than take a train, go shopping much further away than I NEED to, fly more than average etc. etc.. In fact I can probably account for at least
half a degree of global warming single handedly.

But, I am gradually coming to the conclusion in my old age that it's not a clever idea and it's no damned good blaming "them", we are calling the
shots whether we choose to hide from that unsavoury fact or not.

Originally posted by kozmo
The way that oil and gas are handled is the epitome of anti-trust and collusion. This is nothing more than pricing fixing on the largest scale and
the consumer is being fleeced! Anyone who believes differently is either sadly mistaken or ignorant.

The gas station owner was giving a senior citizens a 2 cent discount on each gallon of gas, and discount cards that let sports boosters pay 3 cent
less per gallon. Here comes the kicker.

But the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection says those deals violate Wisconsin's Unfair Sales Act, which requires stations
to sell gas for about 9.2 percent more than the wholesale price.

Some can argue that this law makes it so one gas station doesn't get an unfair advantage over the others. On the other hand it interfers with free
enterprise and also underminds our economic practice of supply and demand. Also, by saying it has to be more than 9.2 percent ensures that the state
gets their gas tax money on the higher amount. It is also apparently evidence of state-sponsored price fixing.

I wouldn't even be suprised if it went to the federal level. There was already much speculation of Bush and Oil. Wouldn't be suprised if they were
just paying lip service about OPEC and how high they driven up the prices.

Originally posted by Vipassana
I agree. Are we honestly supposed to believe, with all this science and amazing technology around us, that we can't in the last 100 years create a
car engine that doesnt require the inefficient use of fossil fuels? Apparently we are and do. They have been conspiring to milk us of every last
penny until the oil runs out for the last 100 years.

A new technology to displace an old one does not have to just be better, but better by enough of a margin to justify uprooting the infrastructure
supporting the old one. You might say well why havent cars improved? Cars have improved a lot in efficiency per hp over the last 35 years. Today, a
240 hp engine gets 21/27 mpg, while in 1970, a car with that efficiency got just 80 hp. So cars have improved. The technology to uproot such an
infrastructure just hasnt been there. And yea. high gas prices blow.

Originally posted by ProfTom
The great thing about living in this country is that you DON'T have to buy gas. take a different mode of transportation.

No-one said you had to drive. If it's your only means of transportation is a car, change it - move - do something other than complain and whine
about it.

Well I cant help but assume that your not living in the US which has a landmass at over 3.7 million square miles. Good luck getting a mass transit
system in a place like that which has so many citys spread so far apart. The funds are not there as well as the technology to be effective.

Originally posted by ProfTom
The great thing about living in this country is that you DON'T have to buy gas. take a different mode of transportation.

No-one said you had to drive. If it's your only means of transportation is a car, change it - move - do something other than complain and whine
about it.

Well I cant help but assume that your not living in the US which has a landmass at over 3.7 million square miles. Good luck getting a mass transit
system in a place like that which has so many citys spread so far apart. The funds are not there as well as the technology to be effective.

Had to be said. I live around 15 miles from where I work. As most roads are in Pennsylvania, it is a windy, hilly trip. There is no option for
public transportation. I can't honestly see myself holding the job too long if I showed up every day sweaty & stinky from a long bike ride. That's
not even considering days that may be rainy or snowy. There are probably a half dozen days a year here that I can hardly drive to work let alone try
to ride a bike.

Before you sternly state that I don't HAVE to drive, you might want to take a step back and consider that not everyone in the country is in the same
situation as you are.

Originally posted by timeless test
This is a far more complex argument than the tabloid press chooses to ask us to believe for a huge range of reasons. To take your points very
briefly in order:

Most oil company profits do not come from charging high prices at the pumps, to quote Lord Browne of BP...

We of course first of all make most of our money in what I think most people would regard as the wholesale market - that is the production of oil
and gas - not in the refining and sales of petrol and so forth,"

The margins made by petrol resellers are generally very low. Most importantly, it is actually remarkably hard to be very specific about what the
cost of producing a gallon of petrol is as this is basically one of a whole range of byproducts from crude oil refining and how you spread the cost of
exploration, recovery transport and refining etc is a (very) moot point.

The blood shed in the pursuit of oil would stop immediately if we as consumers did not demand the oil. This is a desperately simplistic statement of
course, but to ignore the motivation which drives oil companies to practice their trade in more and more unstable areas of the world would only be to
stick our heads in the sand. WE are the consumers who demand oil and oil products.

The oil companies sell a product which endangers our ecology because we demand it. There are lots of potential alternatives and they've been around
for many years, from hydrogen engines and electric vehicles to a radical change in cultural attitudes to reduce the reliance on domestic car ownership
and travel. Unfortunately we have demanded petrol, and latterly diesel, engined cars because they provide the most flexible low cost solution to our
desire for unfettered travel. Should we really be surprised that neither the oil companies or motor industry are happy to satisfy our demands?

Finally, if the oil companies can make more profits from selling advertising then why the hell shouldn't they? (Forgetting for a moment that the
adverts were probably sold by the petrol station franchisee which may not be part of the oil company itself). Once again, this is no more than a
symptom of our consumer culture which is driven by guess who? - US, the consumers. You cannot escape the fact that advertising works and as long as
we, as individuals, can be so easily influenced by advertising people will find ever more imaginative and intrusive ways to use it. If you don't
like adverts with your fuel (and I don't think we have them in this manner in the UK yet), the don't use those petrol stations and write to the
owner to tell him why you have taken your custom elsewhere. However, why, in principle, listening to an advert whilst in a retail environment is
somehow worse that being bombarded with tacky commercials when I am trying to listen to the radio I have no idea.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't some very unsavoury aspects of big business and the oil companies especially but to pretend that we as
consumers are not ultimately responsible for much of the way in which they act is simply to try to evade our responsibility as individuals.

[edit on 22-5-2007 by timeless test]

I agree with you that individuals need to shoulder more of the responsibility. It sickens me when I see some idiot driving around in a Ford F150,
when that person could be driving around in a mini cooper. Unfortunately, in virtually all parts of the US, smart fuel consumption practices are not
a viable option. Take a person like me. I used to ride my bike to work and I drive a compact car that gets 31 miles per gallon. I would like to
take some sort of public transportation to school (I am a student), but unfortunately their are no trains nor busses that would make it feasible. (I
could take a bus ride with 4 transfers to make the trip one way in about 3 hours, but this would not be feasible.)

The reason why many Americans like me do not have these options is that the oil industry has hindered progress into developing public transportation
systems, developing alternative energy sources, etc. Also, the oil companies have encouraged ridiculous fuel consumption habbits like people driving
massive trucks and SUV's. While the American people are far from innocent in this regard, the oil companies do have bloody hands.

Wisconsin with a 32.1 cent tax per gallon
Pennsylvania with a 31.1 cent tax per gallon
Rhode Island with a 30 cent tax per gallon

Federal tax is 18.4 cent tax per gallon.

Take Rhode Island, and suppose gas is 3.00/Gallon .484 cents of that $3.00 is taxes. That's what.. 16%? That's right folks. You're paying a 16%
premium on gas because of taxes.

Isn't that nice?

These taxes are nothing compared to what people in Europe pay for gas. Of course, people in Europe get free medical care and have a rail system that
makes ours look primitive. I am all for a European sized tax on gas. While it would be painful, it would be the catalyst this country needs to
overhaul the way it uses energy. We could use the revenues to research and develop alternative energy sources and build a public transportation
system to rival Europe's. I know many people may hem and haw at this, but the fact of the matter is that it is not worth it for someone else's son
to get killed in Iraq so you can drive a big SUV. It is not worth it for the ice caps to melt so you can drive 100 miles round trip to your McMansion
in some far off suburb.

Almost all gas stations -- even it they have a Shell or Arco or Exxon logo -- is just a franchisee. They make a few cents on the gallon selling fuel.
That's why it is almost always self-serve, the clerk sits inside behind the donuts, cigarettes, and coffee machines. They eke out an existence as a
convenience store. Those ads you are crying about help keep them open and hire people in your neighborhood.

So when people fill up their cars and then drive off without paying, they are not "screwing the evil wealthy oil companies," they are committing
petty theft against a local businessman.

More to the point, as previously pointed out, the price of gasoline in the US is in large part state and federal taxes, and in the EU the majority of
the price is taxes.

You really think gasoline is expensive at $3.00 a gallon? How much do you pay for a gallon of milk? Milk comes out of a cow, in a farm near you. Sure,
there is some distribution and factory farming, but by and large it's a local product without a lot of technical sophistication.

Oil is pumped out of the deserts of Saudi Arabia or out of a hole in the ground thousands of feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, at great
risk and technological expense.

It is then shipped halfway around the world, refined into gasoline and other fuelds, distributed in a nationwide system of tanker trucks and fuel
stations, and delivered to our off-road trucks so you can drive five miles to buy a carton of milk.

Expensive? I think gasonline is cheap. It's too cheap. It should be $10 a gallon. Twenty.

The absurd and ridiculous cheapness of gasonline has contributed to this whole ignoble project of suburban sprawl which in turn leads to even more
gasoline and car dependency, until it has become ingrained in the American's head that cheap gasonline is our bloody birthright.

So woe betide any politicians, "greedy" oil companies, or "dirty" terrorists who get in the way of the Imperial globalization project to deliver
gasoline that's cheaper to milk to the Americans waddling down to their F150s and driving bumper to bumper to Wal-Mart, complaining and moaning the
whole way about how expensive it is.

You want to complain about the petroleum based global economy and the military being used as a global oil protection force? By all means. But make
sure you know what you're complaining about. These topics are far more complicated and nuanced than the easy answers spouted by politicians, media
pundits, radio demagogues, and griping consumers.

Within the next year I will have my Bio-Diesel production up & running. As soon as the bugs are worked out, I will tell the Fuel pumps to P*** off. My
house will still rely on commercial electricity but that will be my next project. I would love to see these home biodiesel plants expand to form
neighborhood co-ops and expand into Commercial Trucking if the US Government is really serious about conservation. Opec could then cut production all
the way to zero and still not be able to maintain their high prices.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
These taxes are nothing compared to what people in Europe pay for gas. Of course, people in Europe get free medical care and have a rail system that
makes ours look primitive. I am all for a European sized tax on gas. While it would be painful, it would be the catalyst this country needs to
overhaul the way it uses energy. We could use the revenues to research and develop alternative energy sources and build a public transportation
system to rival Europe's. I know many people may hem and haw at this, but the fact of the matter is that it is not worth it for someone else's son
to get killed in Iraq so you can drive a big SUV. It is not worth it for the ice caps to melt so you can drive 100 miles round trip to your McMansion
in some far off suburb.

Ah, yes. Painful? Just a little. Much of our economic infrastructure relies on gas prices. Down to the point, much of our goods are "shipped"
via ground delivery (i.e. trucks). When the cost of shipping increases, so will our goods. So, in the race to ween American society off of gas, you
also do a disservice to the hungry family trying to buy a loaf of bread at wal-mart.

That's okay, right? Just increase minimum wage like Europe. Not okay. An increase of minimum wage provides incentives for employers to reduce less
educated staff (the expendable ones). Not only does joe-schmoe not have enough to purchase his loaf of bread, but he also just lost his job. There
is a reason I bring this up:

There is a nice inverse correlation between government intervention in the economy and unemployment rates. It's like a self fulfilling prophecy -
start socialist policies, increase the unemployment rate. Increase the unemployment rate to a large enough point, people will start to rally for the
government to take care of them (ala health care, etc). To an extreme, that is the catalyst for communist ideas to take over the masses.

But I digress.. simply put, I do not think it would be a just move to limit where someone can live by taxing their transportation means to death.
Defacto, you would give people with certain incomes a housing radius within their worksite simply because they can not afford to live elsewhere (talk
about an internal class struggle starting there).

As for the current taxes, I always find it amusing when politicians cry out about the gas prices when, in fact, they could easily bring down the
price, but rather complain. Both taxes and federal requirements on gas beef up the prices - and yet, they sit there in shock at gas companies for
charging so much for fuel.

By the way, do you know where a large portion of Exxon's profits were going? You guessed it.. altnerative energy research. Even oil corporations
know oil is a finite resource.

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
It is not the oil companies that are selling advertisements. It would be the local gas station selling advertisements whether on the side of the gas
pump or a little electronic message displayed while pumping.

While the local mom and pop gas station may get some cut of the advertising revenue, the ads are produced by the oil company and advertise national
brands. Therefore, the oil companies had a hand in the advertisements and they are not making the advertisements for free.

Originally posted by radardog
Ah, yes. Painful? Just a little. Much of our economic infrastructure relies on gas prices. Down to the point, much of our goods are "shipped"
via ground delivery (i.e. trucks). When the cost of shipping increases, so will our goods. So, in the race to ween American society off of gas, you
also do a disservice to the hungry family trying to buy a loaf of bread at wal-mart.

That's okay, right? Just increase minimum wage like Europe.

First, our country simply cannot go on consuming oil as it does. The economic infrastructure will have to change sooner or later. If we act soon, we
can slowly bring it down to the ground and rebuild it. If we do not act, the infrastructure will plummet and be wrecked beyond repair.

Gas price raises need not be sudden and accomidations can be made for freighters. The problem with fuel consumption is not with freighters but with
everyday people. (Most of these people are not making minimum wage, as many people who make minimum are too poor to own cars anyway.) Ratcheting up
gas prices and putting people on notice that the prices will go up will influence people's long term behavior. They will begin to buy more fuel
efficient cars and move closer to urban centers rather than farther from them. The infrastructure can change by building more housing near urban
centers, providing more public transportation, and developing and implementing alternative energy sources.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.